[trill] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay

"Susan Hares" <shares@ndzh.com> Tue, 27 May 2014 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <shares@ndzh.com>
X-Original-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trill@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79B991A02AF for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:15:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 2.845
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.845 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DOS_OUTLOOK_TO_MX=2.845, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NAHOMMBt6e0G for <trill@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hickoryhill-consulting.com (hhc-web3.hickoryhill-consulting.com [64.9.205.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 41CA41A0704 for <trill@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 May 2014 16:15:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Default-Received-SPF: pass (skip=loggedin (res=PASS)) x-ip-name=64.112.195.202;
From: Susan Hares <shares@ndzh.com>
To: draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay@tools.ietf.org, trill@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 19:15:32 -0400
Message-ID: <005301cf7a01$8f2ed200$ad8c7600$@ndzh.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0054_01CF79E0.08206650"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: Ac95/rBLbWOixs/GQjGvqIZGlXNGqA==
Content-Language: en-us
X-Authenticated-User: skh@ndzh.com
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trill/7vQwg61P6730uM4WLhm8hGvL8s8
Cc: 'Donald Eastlake' <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, jon.hudson@gmail.com
Subject: [trill] Shepherd's review of draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay
X-BeenThere: trill@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Developing a hybrid router/bridge." <trill.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/trill/>
List-Post: <mailto:trill@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trill>, <mailto:trill-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 May 2014 23:15:40 -0000

Authors and TRILL WG:

 

I submit for the authors and WG's review attached review of the 

draft-ietf-trill-loss-delay-03.txt 

 

Sue Hares

-----

 

Document Quality

 

The written text of this document is high.  The performance monitoring

issues clearly specified with clear descriptions of the mechanisms.   

 This document is a pleasure to read with only 3 editorial issues mentioned

Below, and one IANA suggestion. 

  

 The document has been co-authors by two groups implementing the 

 code for deployment (Cisco and Huawei).  The careful attention to

operational issues have shows in this draft.   No specific announcement

of the release date for  these TRILL PM implementations has been

made.  An implementation survey planned for June so a better

understanding of the deployments may align with the IESG review. 

 Other vendors have indicated consideration of the PM specification. 

 

Required Editorial Fixes [May be deleted if authors revise]

=====

draft-to-RFC updated needed:

 

1) Outdated reference: draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework has been published as

     RFC 7174

2)   Outdated reference: draft-ietf-trill-fine-labeling has been published
as

     RFC 7172

-------

downref: Normative reference to informational draft 

 

     draft-ietf-trill-oam-framework (ref. 'OAM-FRAMEWK')

 

As a shepherd, I find this to be correct technically.  However, 

WG chairs/AD should review this down ref. 

 

Suggested Technical changes

[pages 24-25: Is the reserved field zero? If so, please indicate.

If not, please indicate that it is unspecified. 

 

Editorial: 

"4.1.1 ,"  to "4.4.1," 

[this seems to be an artifact of the word processing]

 

-----

IANA suggestion:

 

It may be worth considering if IANA should keep a record assignments of the
Y.1731 defined in 6.4.  This will be useful if there is ISO/IETF
collaboration discussion. 

 

Sue Hares